It's interesting how Apple are portrayed as missing the boat, but they actually have a very strong contribution on the hardware side. The mac pro is the favoured device for self-hosted AI, and in great demand.
The main thread of your article - that Apple hasn't offered a product - is solid; but I do wonder: has anyone else? The MANGO gang are speculating that data centres are the way forward, but what product requires that?
Here is the main dilemma for AI: what value does the data centre provide which an iPhone cannot?
Ooouh I love a good hardware discussion, there's so many layers: it won't be short my bad:
First, the data centre vs iPhone comparison assumes they're the same kind of thing when they aren't. AI isn't a product that competes with the phone, now it's infrastructure. Asking what a data centre gives you that a phone can't is like asking what the road gives you that the car can't. The phone is how you reach the intelligence. The intelligence itself lives upstream with the large models, the training and the context that follows you across devices. (not talking about self-hosting of course, that's too anecdotique)
On hardware, I'd narrow what I meant. Not that hardware is over. In B2B it's the opposite, Nvidia and TSMC are building the roads everyone else drives on. I mean consumer hardware. There the device is becoming a way to deliver AI rather than the product itself. Side note, look at Meta. Apple's ambient intelligence bet and Meta's constellation of devices are the same wager from two directions: hardware as a service layer for AI, aimed at a screenless and eventually phoneless future. Neither works without the AI underneath. Look at the iPhone: every year it s the same phone, plus more AI. The AI is what differentiates it now, and the AI, Apple doesn't own.
The fair objection is that Apple was late to MP3 players, phones and watches and won anyway as the better second mover. But those were late entries into a category. Apple still owned everything (the silicon, the OS, the integration, the UX, the 'feel') This time the valuable piece is the model itself, and Apple has to rent it from a rival who sets its direction. Not comparable with following a form factor late. You can't follow a core capability you've handed to someone else.
Basically, my point in the article is not about whether Apple still innovates, but why the market stopped treating it as the leader. Siri never shipped, and the fix came from Google. Again, it's hard to lead a shift you're renting the engine for.
Yes, these are exactly the questions. I keep wondering "what is apple doing?", meta is clearly imploding, google is doubling down on search, microsoft is ruining everything - business as usual!
I guess, my view is that the hardware is more valuable than the model; and the Apple ecosystem is so, so well positioned to make self-hosting a product. I can't imagine they fumble it from here.
It's interesting how Apple are portrayed as missing the boat, but they actually have a very strong contribution on the hardware side. The mac pro is the favoured device for self-hosted AI, and in great demand.
The main thread of your article - that Apple hasn't offered a product - is solid; but I do wonder: has anyone else? The MANGO gang are speculating that data centres are the way forward, but what product requires that?
Here is the main dilemma for AI: what value does the data centre provide which an iPhone cannot?
Ooouh I love a good hardware discussion, there's so many layers: it won't be short my bad:
First, the data centre vs iPhone comparison assumes they're the same kind of thing when they aren't. AI isn't a product that competes with the phone, now it's infrastructure. Asking what a data centre gives you that a phone can't is like asking what the road gives you that the car can't. The phone is how you reach the intelligence. The intelligence itself lives upstream with the large models, the training and the context that follows you across devices. (not talking about self-hosting of course, that's too anecdotique)
On hardware, I'd narrow what I meant. Not that hardware is over. In B2B it's the opposite, Nvidia and TSMC are building the roads everyone else drives on. I mean consumer hardware. There the device is becoming a way to deliver AI rather than the product itself. Side note, look at Meta. Apple's ambient intelligence bet and Meta's constellation of devices are the same wager from two directions: hardware as a service layer for AI, aimed at a screenless and eventually phoneless future. Neither works without the AI underneath. Look at the iPhone: every year it s the same phone, plus more AI. The AI is what differentiates it now, and the AI, Apple doesn't own.
The fair objection is that Apple was late to MP3 players, phones and watches and won anyway as the better second mover. But those were late entries into a category. Apple still owned everything (the silicon, the OS, the integration, the UX, the 'feel') This time the valuable piece is the model itself, and Apple has to rent it from a rival who sets its direction. Not comparable with following a form factor late. You can't follow a core capability you've handed to someone else.
Basically, my point in the article is not about whether Apple still innovates, but why the market stopped treating it as the leader. Siri never shipped, and the fix came from Google. Again, it's hard to lead a shift you're renting the engine for.
Yes, these are exactly the questions. I keep wondering "what is apple doing?", meta is clearly imploding, google is doubling down on search, microsoft is ruining everything - business as usual!
I guess, my view is that the hardware is more valuable than the model; and the Apple ecosystem is so, so well positioned to make self-hosting a product. I can't imagine they fumble it from here.
Plus, hardware never threatens to crash the stock market ;) We'll see! Thanks for the feedback.